• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (11)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Public Health  • Tobacco  • Drug Therapy  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

More Value for Money

Hans Joachim Salize, PhD; Silke Merkel, Dipl-Rom; Iris Reinhard, Dipl-Math; Dorothee Twardella, PhD; Karl Mann, MD; Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH

Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(3):230-235.

Background  Evidence from cost-effective smoking cessation programs is scarce. This study determined the cost-effectiveness of 3 smoking cessation strategies as provided by general practitioners (GPs) in Germany.

Methods  In a cluster-randomized smoking cessation trial, rates and intervention costs for 577 smoking patients of 82 GPs were followed up for 12 months. Three smoking cessation treatments were tested: (1) GP training plus GP remuneration for each abstinent patient, (2) GP training plus cost-free nicotine replacement medication and/or bupropion hydrochloride for the patient, and (3) a combination of both strategies. Smoking abstinence at 12 months was the primary outcome used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits.

Results  Intervention 1 was not effective compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Interventions 2 and 3 each proved to be cost-effective compared separately with TAU. When applying a 95% level of certainty of cost-effectiveness against TAU, 9.80 or 6.96, respectively, had to be paid for each additional 1% of patients abstinent at 12 months (maximum willingness to pay). That means that in intervention 2, 92.12 per patient in the program must be invested to gain 1 additional quitter (as opposed to 39.10 paid per patient during the trial). In intervention 2, the cost was 82.82, as opposed to 50.04. Neither of these 2 cost-effective treatments proved to be superior to the other. The cost-effectiveness of both treatments was stable against TAU in sensitivity analyses. (The exchange rate from October 1, 2003, was used; 1 = $1.17.)

Conclusions  Both treatments have a high potential to reduce smoking-related morbidity at a low cost. It is highly recommended that they be implemented as a routine service offered by GPs because in many countries, health insurance plans currently do not fund nicotine replacement therapy.

Author Affiliations: Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany (Drs Salize and Mann and Mss Merkel and Reinhard); Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Oberschleissheim, Germany (Dr Twardella); and German Centre for Research on Ageing and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany (Dr Brenner).

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Cost-effective Primary Care–Based Strategies to Improve Smoking Cessation—Invited Commentary
Patrick G. O’Malley
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(3):235-236.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Effectiveness of providing financial incentives to healthcare professionals for smoking cessation activities: systematic review
Hamilton et al.
Tobacco Control 2011;0:tobaccocontrol-2011-05004-tobaccocontrol-2011-05004.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pulmonary Function Abnormalities in HIV-Infected Patients during the Current Antiretroviral Therapy Era
Gingo et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2010;182:790-796.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparative Effectiveness of 5 Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapies in Primary Care Clinics
Smith et al.
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2148-2155.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of Pharmacotherapy for Smoking Cessation in Italy
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1927-1928.
FULL TEXT